The claimant sought damages for trespass to two plots comprising about one fifth of an acre. They had over many years gardened it and tended it. The defendant had bulldozed the entire area.
Held: The diminution in the value of the land was not an appropriate measure of damages in respect of this trespass. The court considered the measure of damages in trespass: ‘Where trespass by the defendant has caused damage to the claimant’s land, the claimant may be entitled to the diminution in the value of the land or the reasonable cost of reasonable reinstatement, or in some cases a figure in between. All will depend on the circumstances of the particular case, but the authorities seem to me to establish the following general propositions.
1. The claimant will ordinarily be entitled to the diminution in value of the property unless the reasonable claimant would have reinstated the land at less cost.
2. The claimant who has in fact reinstated the property will ordinarily be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of doing so, even if the cost is greater that the diminution in value, unless he has acted unreasonably in reinstating the property.
3. Where the claimant has not yet reinstated the property, (subject to 4 and 5 below) he will ordinarily be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of reasonable reinstatement, even if it is greater than the diminution in value.
4. In assessing what is the reasonable cost of reasonable reinstatement, the court will consider whether the amount awarded is objectively fair; that is fair to both parties. In particular the court will not award a sum which is out of proportion to the benefit conferred on the claimant.
5. In assessing what steps it is reasonable to take by way of reasonable reinstatement, the court will take account of the cost of the reinstatement. Thus it may not be reasonable fully to reinstate the property because the cost of doing so may not be justified. All will depend on the circumstances of the particular case.’
Judges:
Judge, Tuckey LJJ
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Civ 717
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bryant v Macklin CA 23-Jun-2005
The parties were neighbours. Mature trees had been damaged which had provided a screen against pylons. The cost of one directly equivalent tree would be andpound;400,000.
Held: In this case it was not possible to make an award which could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Land
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145632